Our intuitions are not cut out for nonlinearities. Consider our life in a primitive environment where process and result are closely connected. You are thirsty; drinking brings you adequate satisfaction. Or even in a not-so-primitive environment, when you engage in building, say, a bridge or a stone house, more work will lead to more apparent results, so your mood is propped up by visible continuous feedback. In a primitive environment, the relevant is the sensational. This applies to our knowledge. When we try to collect information about the world around us, we tend to be guided by our biology, and our attention flows effortlessly toward the sensational—not the relevant so much as the sensational. Somehow the guidance system has gone wrong in the process of our coevolution with our habitat—it was transplanted into a world in which the relevant is often boring, nonsensational. Taleb, Nassim. The Black Swan (pp. 87-88). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
By reducing the amount of stimuli (e.g., through NSD), you will be more likely to notice the non-sensational because you'll be more sensitive to it. Nice! NSD
Exaxtly. Thats why people having nkrmal jobs may be happier. How can you minimize the negative impact of the abstract?
For most of our history work and results, inputs and outputs were closely related. You were thirsty; drinking brought you adequate satisfaction. You were building a hut; more work lead to more apparent results, so your mood was propped up by visible feedback. In other words, what was relevant was the sensational. This is why we are so attracted to sensory and concrete information. Unfortunately, in our world what's most relevant becomes more and more boring and nonsensational.
Also to emotional. Are we drawn to the emotional because system 1, which is cheaper, works with emotions? When something is emotional we will be less likely to use system 2, thus saving energy?
Does emotional count as concrete?
Intuitives are better suited for today's world?